S15.E13: A Little Place Called Aspen

[Yeah No]

12 minutes ago, LotusFlower said:

If Jonathan isn’t regarded as a brute, then I’m sure the interaction with Adrienne and Bruce wasn’t intentional, which makes his “motivation” moot.  Take Matt Damon’s interviews on the #MeToo movement in Hollywood, for example.  He’s always been regarded as a pretty progressive and respectful guy, and yet his comments on the matter showed he had no idea what women in his industry were experiencing, and had no understanding of how he was participating in maintaining the male-dominated status quo.  As a powerful man in Hollywood, he simply saw things a certain way.  Similarly, as Adrienne put it, Jonathan saw two chef contestants behind the table and simply assumed the male contestant was the Exec. Chef.  Nothing sinister about it, just someone’s innate perspective.

She's entitled to her perspective, but by the same token I think Jonathan is entitled to the benefit of the doubt in the absence of hearing what he might have to say about it.  Just because other men have shown themselves to be clueless doesn't mean Jonathan will.  I take everyone as an individual, not as typical of their sex or any other clueless Matt Damon example of their sex.  And I did see those interviews with Matt, but that actually didn't surprise me.  It would actually surprise me coming from Jonathan, though.

[bobbobbob199]

22 minutes ago, LotusFlower said:

 

!!!

But the problem is that your message is very sexist. You say it is not okay to make assumptions that a women is a sous chef (even though a women is the sous chef for a man in most cases compared to the other way around) but it is okay to assume that the men cause the sexism which is always targeted at women (which is true in most but far from all cases). Both instances are STEREOTYPES and SEXIST but you say only one of them is. That is the definition of being SEXIST, only considering things when it pertains to a certain gender. 

Edited March 3, 2018 by bobbobbob199

[LotusFlower]

10 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

And I did see those interviews with Matt, but that actually didn't surprise me.  It would actually surprise me coming from Jonathan, though.

Why?  I’m curious why you think Matt Damon is prone to innate sexism, but Jonathan Waxman isn’t.

[DarkRaichu]

4 hours ago, biakbiak said:

She was briefly the editor of Food and Wine, her depature was annpunved a few days after this was filmed.

Thanks for the explanation. I thought she was the editor of F&W during previous season of TC.  I was surprised by the "Contributor" tag under her name

2 hours ago, spiderpig said:

Padma made a point in her book of how TC wardrobe did wonders disguising her weight gain (up to 17 pounds in a season).  Since we just really started commenting on the extreme cleavage in the past two episodes, I'm wondering if the over-exposure isn't intentional to misdirect the eye.

She looks fabulous no matter what.

I welcome the misdirection :P :P :P

Although I do not think they needed any misdirection.  I've watched TC / ogle at Padma long enough to notice she looks great this season..
I will admit the boobs took away my attention from her face, which is a shame since she emotes more this season

[Yeah No]

6 hours ago, LotusFlower said:

Why?  I’m curious why you think Matt Damon is prone to innate sexism, but Jonathan Waxman isn’t.

I never bought Matt as the enlightened male he presented himself to be.  Just gut instinct plus I had heard more than my share of stuff like this.

Jonathan Waxman is just a regular guy, no big ego and seems like a sweetheart.  In his interviews he is always self critical and aware.  He seems like someone that has grown up while Matt always came off to me as full of himself and pretentious.  Again, just gut instinct.  But even so that doesn't mean I don't think Jonathan could be capable of innate sexism in that situation with Adrienne.  He might be.  My opinion is that in the absence of direct evidence to draw that conclusion (not just someone else's assessment of his behavior), I should give him the benefit of the doubt.  Even if Adrienne had said she heard him say to Bruce, "is this your sous chef?" that might support her conclusion, but I don't remember her saying that.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Yeah No

[hkit]

20 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

Jonathan Waxman is just a regular guy, no big ego and seems like a sweetheart.  In his interviews he is always self critical and aware.  He seems like someone that has grown up while Matt always came off to me as full of himself and pretentious.  Again, just gut instinct.  But even so that doesn't mean I don't think Jonathan could be capable of innate sexism in that situation with Adrienne.  He might be.  My opinion is that in the absence of direct evidence to draw that conclusion (not just someone else's assessment of his behavior), I should give him the benefit of the doubt.  Even if Adrienne had said she heard him say to Bruce, "is this your sous chef?" that might support her conclusion, but I don't remember her saying that.

I adore Jonathan. I don't think he has a mean or spiteful atom in his body. I may be projecting what my ideal image is of him, but I like to think he'd be upset if his actions caused someone to feel uncomfortable. That being said, I don't think this excludes him from the casual, unconscious sexism that occurs when younger woman next to older man automatically equals the man is in the senior position. And that's not to condemn Jonathan or Bruce, or to victimize Adrienne. It's the reality of gender roles that have been so prevalent for so long that people default to them. And that's why this conversation is so important. 

[dleighg]

2 minutes ago, hkit said:

It's the reality of gender roles that have been so prevalent for so long that people default to them. And that's why this conversation is so important. 

When I was a grad (PhD) student sometimes I needed to use the computer out in the "bullpen" area of our Engineering department. Even though I was dressed in typical grad student attire, I was always assumed to be a secretary. I guarantee that this never happened to the young men sitting in the same chair. Same as when I was working as a summer student at bell labs -- dressed completely unlike a secretary, but assumed to be one. I've had my name listed in a program and I'm the only one who has "PhD" left off as a title. I've had men hand their business cards to everyone around, except me, assuming I'm some sort of assistant or note-taker. Women who've been there *are* sensitive to it. Damn straight.

[Yeah No]

29 minutes ago, hkit said:

I adore Jonathan. I don't think he has a mean or spiteful atom in his body. I may be projecting what my ideal image is of him, but I like to think he'd be upset if his actions caused someone to feel uncomfortable. That being said, I don't think this excludes him from the casual, unconscious sexism that occurs when younger woman next to older man automatically equals the man is in the senior position. And that's not to condemn Jonathan or Bruce, or to victimize Adrienne. It's the reality of gender roles that have been so prevalent for so long that people default to them. And that's why this conversation is so important. 

I generally agree with you that this is possible.  But wouldn't it also be possible for Jonathan to have that same reaction if Adrienne's sous chef was an older, more well known female chef that he knew personally and his assumption was based on the older woman's age, experience and notoriety?  Someone like Susan Feniger or Dominique Cren?  I think it would be very possible so that's why I refrain from assuming it was motivated by sexism.  I've noticed that the culinary world is hierarchical in that respect and recognition is given based on age and experience.  There is sexism for sure, but in this case I don't feel I have enough information to draw that conclusion.  It could be age and experience-ism.

[Yeah No]

28 minutes ago, dleighg said:

When I was a grad (PhD) student sometimes I needed to use the computer out in the "bullpen" area of our Engineering department. Even though I was dressed in typical grad student attire, I was always assumed to be a secretary. I guarantee that this never happened to the young men sitting in the same chair. Same as when I was working as a summer student at bell labs -- dressed completely unlike a secretary, but assumed to be one. I've had my name listed in a program and I'm the only one who has "PhD" left off as a title. I've had men hand their business cards to everyone around, except me, assuming I'm some sort of assistant or note-taker. Women who've been there *are* sensitive to it. Damn straight.

I hear you but in this situation I WAS the secretary.  Just imagine how it feels to feel that other women detest what you symbolize and don't want to be identified as one of YOU.  That's a form of prejudice from woman to woman that I've experienced first hand.  I would rather work for a world where no one sees any shame in being a secretary or a younger, less experienced chef.  You are what you are and if people put you down or see you as "less than" because of it, that's on them.

[dleighg]

has absolutely nothing to do with shame. Has to do with being asked to refill the copier or arrange a meeting when that's not my job.

[Yeah No]

21 minutes ago, dleighg said:

has absolutely nothing to do with shame. Has to do with being asked to refill the copier or arrange a meeting when that's not my job.

I was talking about the shame I felt knowing that other women didn't want to be identified with what I did knowing that people tended so see it as "less than" and not as valuable (probably because it was identified as "womens' work").  Just as Adrienne shouldn't feel "less than" based on being young and less experienced just because people assume her to be less valuable or talented on that basis...Or the basis of being a woman.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Yeah No

[LeighLeigh]

8 hours ago, Yeah No said:

 Plus if there was a threat of bear poop in the fish someone should have mentioned it to the chefs.  

Pretty sure the question, "Does a bear poop in the woods?" was meant as joke with no relation to the actual fish. 

[LeighLeigh]

Just checked...did the judge actually say that the bear poop flows downhill and taints the water? Ooh,gross .

[snarktini]

52 minutes ago, LeighLeigh said:

Just checked...did the judge actually say that the bear poop flows downhill and taints the water? Ooh,gross .

Yes he did!

[Lura]

All due respect to our friends in Colorado, but the prospect of eating in one of their restaurants with a choice of Rocky Mountain Oysters or fish marinated in bear poop, makes me think that I'd rather stay home!  :)  (Just teasing you, Colorado residents.)

Edited March 3, 2018 by Lura
typo

[LotusFlower]

3 hours ago, Yeah No said:

 I've noticed that the culinary world is hierarchical in that respect and recognition is given based on age and experience.  There is sexism for sure, but in this case I don't feel I have enough information to draw that conclusion.  It could be age and experience-ism.

I think the part of this discussion that’s missing is that this interaction happened in a competition, not in a restaurant or just out and about.  Jonathan, in fact, even competed himself in Top Chef Masters.  So when he approached the food tables to taste and judge the food, he knew that there were both men and women competing, and yet....

[whydoiwatchtv]

This season has been just an ok level but the beautiful Colorado scenery has made up for it for me. And I’ve always had a girl crush on Padma. I think she looked beautiful all season. Go Adrienne!

[Spunkygal]

I really love the location of this season's episodes. For years, we have gone to Vail in the summer to escape my area's relentless heat and humidity. I am amazed at the number of folks who are so puzzled why we go to Colorado in the summer when "there's no skiing at that time of year." THIS is why! Look at how gorgeous it is and there is so much to do. And I've enjoyed 99% of the contestants. I don't care who wins, I just hope they both cook the best kickass meal they've ever prepared.

[Madding crowd]

I'm a vegetarian so I live for these types of challenges but when they said cook for 200, I knew we wouldn't get a really cool veggie entree but a bite sized dish. I wonder if all of the guests who came were still hungry after having three tiny appetizers. I liked all three of the finale but kind of felt Joe Sasto should have been in the finale based on his record in the EC. I also thought Padma's low cut dresses are unprofessional and take away from the idea of the judges being in the background with the contestants in the foreground. 

[pinguina]

8 hours ago, dleighg said:

When I was a grad (PhD) student sometimes I needed to use the computer out in the "bullpen" area of our Engineering department. Even though I was dressed in typical grad student attire, I was always assumed to be a secretary. I guarantee that this never happened to the young men sitting in the same chair. Same as when I was working as a summer student at bell labs -- dressed completely unlike a secretary, but assumed to be one. I've had my name listed in a program and I'm the only one who has "PhD" left off as a title. I've had men hand their business cards to everyone around, except me, assuming I'm some sort of assistant or note-taker. Women who've been there *are* sensitive to it. Damn straight.

 

6 hours ago, dleighg said:

has absolutely nothing to do with shame. Has to do with being asked to refill the copier or arrange a meeting when that's not my job.

I know that people don't mean any disrespect when they address someone who LOOKS as if they have a specific job title, ability, or "talent". But it can be HMMMM - maybe I'm looking for "narrow-minded"(?).  This has kind of happened to me in a different context - people assume that I don't speak English and try to speak my primary language. It just annoys me because it is based on how I look. It doesn't seem to happen to people of Asian descent (but that could be my own assumption!)

Another thing is this - I have a friend who has two bachelors of science as well as a master's degree in geology.  He works out in the field but also has an office in his company's building.  He came in from the field dressed in boots, jeans, and cotton shirt (as did a few other men who came in with him).  As he walked to his office, he was stopped by another man (dressed in a suit), who pointed to  mess and said to my friend, "Why don't you clean that up?"  My friend answered, "Why should I?"  The man in suit said, "Well, it's your job as a janitor."  My friend responded, "IF I was the janitor I would clean it up, but I'm not.  I'll call one from my office."  The point being that of the small group of men (dressed in similar fashion) who walked in , he was the only minority and the only one asked to clean up the mess. 

People don't mean to make these assumptions but they are annoying to the people they make them about. It can also be seen as prejudiced or sexist by the person on the receiving end of their comments, questions, or actions.  And I think, it puts the person saying or acting in that manner in a bad light and they in turn are judged whether they realize it or not.  

So I guess this is a roundabout way of saying that when Adrienne was assumed to be the sous chef, it could just be an unconscious judgement/decision on the part of the person (in this case Waxman) who did not realize how it came out or how it made him look.  And maybe more people (including myself) need to be more aware of how they perceive others and how they interact with them.

[quarkuud]

3 hours ago, pinguina said:

 

I know that people don't mean any disrespect when they address someone who LOOKS as if they have a specific job title, ability, or "talent". But it can be HMMMM - maybe I'm looking for "narrow-minded"(?).  This has kind of happened to me in a different context - people assume that I don't speak English and try to speak my primary language. It just annoys me because it is based on how I look. It doesn't seem to happen to people of Asian descent (but that could be my own assumption!)

Yeah, I will also add that it does have an quantifiable effect.  For example, when I worked in an open plan office, visitors would walk by the men closest to the door to come to ask me questions like "where is John today?"  Since I do work that requires concentration, it had more of an effect on my work product than the actual 30 seconds of interruption.  It might take me 5, 10, 15 minutes to get back to where I was in my work.  And that's something that didn't hurt the men in the office but did hurt me.  Moving to an office with cubes so I'm not visible from the door has drastically reduced these interruptions.  In Adrienne's case, unconscious sexism and racism may have cost her valuable schmoozing time.  I appreciated how Bruce handled it, but ideally it wouldn't have gone down like that.

3 hours ago, bobbobbob199 said:

I don't even necessarily disagree with your statement, but I also don't disagree with the fact that most of the time when there's a female and male cooking together, the female is the sous chef...both are deep down probably true but at the same time they are separating individuals by gender, and we should strive to avoid saying these things because they may be divisive. 

I really strongly disagree with this.  The way people see me is different than the way people would see me if I were male-presenting.  The way people see me is different than if I looked black.  My personal perspective is different than that of a man, and a cis-man can't have the same view of the way women are treated (a transman may, depending on his history).  To flip the issue around a bit, the experience of a man wanting to be a preschool teacher wouldn't be something my preschool teaching sister can truly understand.  Intellectually, she knows that some parents might be weirded out by it, but without seeing the dirty looks and the constant low-level anxiety, she doesn't feel it viscerally.  I don't think we should invalidate the experience of the less privileged because it might be divisive.

[JES004]

21 hours ago, xtwheeler said:

Clothing does not convey messages about sexual availability, and if it did, a woman's sexual availability is nothing to be condemned as "slutty." Sexual activity, whether frequent or not is no basis for shaming someone. 

Padma surely has either a stylist from the show or the show's consent for her attire, so by definition it cannot be "unprofessional" if endorsed by her employer. 

What many are ignoring in the Adrienne/Bruce situation is the fact it is not an isolated incident. It is not limited to the limited circumstance of chefs who happen to know Bruce. People assume the man is in charge and the woman is the assistant. 

Ex: I've been practicing law since I was 23 years old. I lost count after my first couple of years of how many times people assumed I was the court reporter for depositions *I* was taking, how many times I was assumed to be the receptionist, secretary, or paralegal, not to mention how many times I was called "sweetheart" "honey" or "babe." So it is unlikely to me, but possible THIS time it wasn't just seismic, but I believe Adrienne when she says it happens to her all the time. Read what Tom Colicchio and Anthony Bourdain have to say about the extremely abusive bro culture in professional kitchens. And please don't dismiss women's experiences when we tell you what we are experiencing. You think we are jumping to conclusions, while you are reflexively defending and therefore perpetuating abusive sexist behavior because it is uncomfortable to confront, in my opinion. Nobody wants to admit their "instinct" is to side with an abuser, but it is about time we ALL examine our instincts and think about how much conditioning and  condoning of historical bad behavior gave rise to those "instincts." 

I'm a woman, and in a position that is more often held by men.  Is there sexism? Sure.  But in this clip, I didn't see any.  There may have been other instances that happened during the event, but not from that clip.  Editing played a role here.  We don't really know if that particular interaction was what Adrienne was referring to, right? 

As to Padma's clothes, I fully believe the Magical Elves want to 'sex her up', and may even encourage her to make the overt sexual comments.  I thought the dress looked pretty ugly, and momentarily mused about the sheer bad taste of whoever dressed her.  I usually pay very little attention to her, as I prefer to concentrate on the people who are cooking.

 

On another note - my friend asked me a couple weeks into the season who I liked to go to the finale. I picked Adrienne.  Go me!

Edited March 4, 2018 by JES004

[WineCheeseChocolat]

I have not been following on these boards as I haven’t been watching the show in real time and not wanting to get spoiled, but I don’t think I’ve ever been as happy with a final two as I am with Adrienne and Joe Flamm.

While I agree that this season hasn’t been the best in terms of coming up with solid cooking competitions vs dumbass scenarios, I have really liked the class of chefs. High caliber, minimal drama, fun personalities...

Adrienne might win out over Carla Hall and Brooke Williamson for my favorite female chef and if we weren’t both married, I’d date Joe Flamm, so there’s no clear winner for me. I’d be happy with either.

I do agree it was too bad Carrie wasn’t cooking in this challenge. She would’ve rocked it. And I love beets so I was sad to see someone go home on a beet dish.

[Norma Desmond]

On 02/03/2018 at 1:58 AM, doLLish said:

I think I’m the only one who has very mixed feelings about Adrienne’s journey that makes it very hard for me to root for her to be Top Chef.

Nope. She skated by week after week by being slightly less awful than the eliminated du jour. Cannot root for her.

[Eulipian 5k]

On ‎3‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 2:52 PM, worleybird said:

So what has been the purpose these last few eps of the split screen during one of the commercial breaks with a Behind the Scenes (where we can't hear any audio) and a Bravo promo (last night was for Married to Medicine)?

Looks like the ,tryout of the new TV Ad format to thwart uz folks who want to FF thru Ads. Saw it during NFL broadcasts.

[cooksdelight]

4 hours ago, Eulipian 5k said:

Looks like the ,tryout of the new TV Ad format to thwart uz folks who want to FF thru Ads. Saw it during NFL broadcasts.

As someone who’s spent my entire career working in advertising/marketing, I said to myself “what took them so long to figure this out?” DVRs and FF is killing ad revenue. Although, if I never see the Trouveo guy bouncing around again, it will be an early Christmas present.

I wonder what everyone’s problem was with not getting enough smoky flavor in the food? I wasn’t watching closely enough, or it wasn’t shown, did they soak the wood in water first? That’s where the smoke comes from. Or, that’s how I do it and get lots of smoke that way.

[Simon47]

Question: Where did Sasto and Carrie go?

[AZChristian]

2 hours ago, cooksdelight said:

Although, if I never see the Trouveo guy bouncing around again, it will be an early Christmas present.

OT . . . he seems pleasant enough, but don't you want to tell him to pull his pants out of his crack when he's at the office?

[FormerMod-a1]

Topic, please.  Which is this episode and the things that happened in this episode, and not sexism in general.  Lastly, discuss the show and not each other.

[cooksdelight]

58 minutes ago, Simon47 said:

Question: Where did Sasto and Carrie go?

Probably to that fancy hotel. Which I guess is where the other chefs used in this episode stayed.

[Rahul]

This episode made me realize how much I wanted Mustachio Sasto to leave the competition. I was genuinely surprised to find myself clapping after his elimination was announced.

[chiaros]

On 3/2/2018 at 9:18 PM, stormy said:

I don't know, maybe it's me but Padma's boobs hanging out really bothered me.

Other than that, I was very happy to see Joe go.  He seemed to be wandering around like he didn't really know what was going on.

[LeighLeigh]

I like Joe Sasto. He was entertaining, talented, and eager to please the judges. 

He is replying to people on his Instagram. He seems humble and grateful.

He keeps referring to a big opportunity ahead for him. I have been scouring his Insta for clues and all that I came up with was a positive comment from Alex Guarnascelli (sp?). I am curious if they will be working together in some capacity in the future.

[spankydoll]

On 3/1/2018 at 11:44 PM, LeighLeigh said:

We get Fatima next week! Oh, how I missed her.

She was the only interesting thing about this show now. It's grown stale. Tom can barely stay awake he is so bored being there. 

[catrice2]

Just got around to watching.  I actually have not been as faithful since they started Last Chance...if you go, you should go!   They have wanted Joe for some time and he is undoubtedly talented, but there were only a few contestants that were interesting to me.  Since I did not watch every week, I have to suppose that Adrienne cooked well enough (or at least better than someone else that day based on the judges standards) to still be there. 

She is on Chris' Instagram a lot, so I can't believe that she won, but if she does it will be an upset. 

[Eulipian 5k]

6 hours ago, aquarian1 said:

Topic, please.  Which is this episode and the things that happened in this episode,

Could somebody tell this to the PYK Podcasters?

Colorado is like one of those insufferable people who get up in the morning, don't have to do anything, and still look great all over.

[limecoke]

I’m pretty happy with both finalists.  Would have preferred Carrie but an Adrienne win would be great.  Glad Flamm made it too. 

Oh dear.  That was a bad look for Parma, from hair to fashion choices.  Either the Colorado dryness was messing with her hair or they hired a new stylist.  I also wasn’t too thrilled with the back-to-back episode boobage.  We GET it!!

Quote

I wonder, is it even possible for a show like TC to do "neutral edits"? 

Yep.  The Great British Bake-off manages it every year.   Straight baking challenges-drama free, scandal free and everybody likes everybody.  

[Rai]

I don't mind being in the minority on this one. I COVET Padma's gold eyeshadow. Come through, Ms. Lakshmi!

Also, I've worked in a male-dominanted industry for over a decade packed with well-meaning, progressive, yet kinda clueless older white dudes like Jonathan Waxman. The situation was very familiar to me when he greeted Bruce heartily and then kinda went "oh, hey" at Adrienne. I am with her on this one, 100%.

[MartyQui]

I think the judges wanted butter or oil on the bread *before* it was toasted...toasting bread dry, and then not putting anything on it, just tastes like stale bread (to me at least).  Putting some olive oil, or a smidge of butter on it would enhance the toasting process.

[chiaros]

On 3/2/2018 at 5:11 AM, Rammchick said:

Yep.  It's why sushi is only marine fish.

Additionally, the best sushi is not always the freshest fish. It depends on the seafood component, but different fishes – besides being frozen, are also aged (yes, literally aged - like beef; or, for that matter, like game meats) for different periods depending on which fish it is. (Shellfish would tend to be served as fresh as possible, yes)

 

On 3/2/2018 at 3:09 PM, Blonde Gator said:

I am such a fish snob (because I can't bear the thought of fish that's been out of the water for more than six hours or so) that I rarely order it in a restaurant, unless I can actually see it first. 

Based on the above statement, one might suppose, then, that you would never eat sushi or sashimi, especially in a high-class restaurant?  Unless, perhaps, if you sit at the sushi bar and "see" the tuna and other fish cuts and are allowed to smell it and poke at it? [One can see the fish, but anything more I think it unlikely the itamae in most places would oblige]  See my comment above. If you go to the finest sushi restaurants in Japan or anywhere else (including in the USA) and expect to be served the freshest fish straight from the ocean and that had been alive just a few hours before you may be disappointed.

 

Here are a few references for those who were not aware of this:

https://www.thesushigeek.com/the-sushi-geek/2016/02/05/719

http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/food-drink/article/2052187/why-hong-kong-chefs-age-fish-used-sashimi-and-sushi-just-good

https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-top-sushi-chef-age-different-fish

http://www.foodandwine.com/fwx/food/freshest-fish-doesnt-always-make-best-sushi

And, in the vein of talking about sushi and sashimi, here's some stuff on the tuna that goes through Tsukiji Fish Market in Tokyo, from which places like Sukiyabashi Jiro, one of the most famous sushi places in the world (and any number of other sushi places there), get their tuna. Note: the tuna has been frozen, for days, out of the water for days; and will be aged further by Chef Jiro Ono (and now his son) for days longer.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tsukiji+market+tuna

Edited March 5, 2018 by chiaros

[Fiero425]

On ‎3‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 1:23 PM, catrice2 said:

Just got around to watching.  I actually have not been as faithful since they started Last Chance...if you go, you should go!   They have wanted Joe for some time and he is undoubtedly talented, but there were only a few contestants that were interesting to me.  Since I did not watch every week, I have to suppose that Adrienne cooked well enough (or at least better than someone else that day based on the judges standards) to still be there. 

She is on Chris' Instagram a lot, so I can't believe that she won, but if she does it will be an upset. 

We've had "comebacks" of epic proportions going back to Season 7! Kevin was mediocre at best and failed challenge after challenge, but somehow got his act together during the finale to win it all! Obviously anyone who survived LCK to win was huge like Kristen in Season 10 and Brooke from Season 14! ;-)

Edited March 5, 2018 by Fiero425

[chiaros]

46 minutes ago, Fiero425 said:

We've had "comebacks" of epic proportions going back to Season 7! Kevin was mediocre at best and failed challenge after challenge, but somehow got his act together during the finale to win it all! Obviously anyone who survived LCK to win was huge like Kristen in Season 10 and Brooke from Season 14! ;-)

 

Indeed, Kevin Sbraga skated by so, so many times. and escaped elimination by just being not quite the worst each time. Much like Adrienne this season. Kevin S also got the sheer luck of drawing Mike Voltaggio as his sous chef in the finale in Singapore, even if he had "studied up on" the local cuisine.  IMO his "victory" was due more to Mike V rather than himself. 

As for Kevin Sbraga's culinary endeavors without Mike V to help him - ALL of his restaurants in Philly have closed. He is, currently AFAIK, out of the culinary scene for the time being.

Edited March 5, 2018 by chiaros

[Fiero425]

9 minutes ago, chiaros said:

He also got the sheer luck of drawing Mike Voltaggio as his sous chef.  IMO his "victory" was due more to Mike V rather than himself.

As for Kevin Sbraga's culinary endeavors without Mike V to help him - ALL of his restaurants in Philly have closed. He is, currently AFAIK, out of the culinary scene for the time being.

He truly was middle of the road, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised! The sous chef is crucial! To this day I think Casey all but sabotaged Carla in Season 5 overpowering the girl during the finale with her suggestions! ;-)

Edited March 5, 2018 by Fiero425

[Ohiopirate02]

7 hours ago, MartyQui said:

I think the judges wanted butter or oil on the bread *before* it was toasted...toasting bread dry, and then not putting anything on it, just tastes like stale bread (to me at least).  Putting some olive oil, or a smidge of butter on it would enhance the toasting process.

Yes, or his overall dish was lacking fat.  Butter or olive oil on the bread would have provided some.

[catrice2]

Gosh, I am worse than I thought. I don't even know what Kevin you are referring to or what season.  I think in General the people on the show make the mistake of thinking that winning or even being on the show means you should open a restaurant.  The restaurant business is brutal...and that is without having the hype and expectations raised from Top Chef. 

Besides you can be Top Chef from the talent that was on the show ( and let's face it the luck of the draw with the challenge, guest judge, etc.) but still not be ready to be "Top Chef," in your own restaurant. 

[dleighg]

I think Hung never opened his own restaurant, but is successful. B. Voltaggio is very successful coming in second. Wasn't Kevin the "Singapore" finale? Certainly many do well after doing well on the show (not necessarily winning). I think the ratio is pretty good, which is why people are ready to subject themselves to this.

[cooksdelight]

Looking at the pictures above of Sasto, does it bother anyone that they are all barehanded, not using gloves, to handle food?

[noveltylibrary]

On 3/2/2018 at 6:38 AM, The Solution said:

Joe Flamm has been a big nothing burger for me all season, in terms of both personality and food. I don't get it. 

Totally with you, wish it had been Sasto and Adrienne.

[Lura]

I can't argue with the Flamm-Adrienne decision.  Both have been hard working, conscientious. very likable and deserving.  My only wish is that Joe Sasto had been up there with them.  He, too, seemed deserving IMHO.

May the better chef win!

[chiaros]

5 hours ago, cooksdelight said:

Looking at the pictures above of Sasto, does it bother anyone that they are all barehanded, not using gloves, to handle food?

Hmm. Do you eat sushi, especially nigirizushi?

 

Anyway, regarding "hands" in this episode:  Here are screenshots of Adrienne & Bruce handling their food.  Note the second shot where Adrienne RUBS HER NOSE (and then goes back to handling the food with those same hands; the third shot is not immediately after, though). Bruce is handling those chard leaves that were used to wrap that too-runny corn concoction.

Edited March 6, 2018 by chiaros